Electric cars are doing fine. ICE cars apparently aren't, despite the low oil prices. Just have a look at recent news about Ford, Tesla, Volkswagen, Audi...
Edit: To quote unattributed from a friend that does this stuff for work, I don't think they'll mind as long as their name isn't attached:
"I think it’s a distraction from more effective policy. Emission standards like CAFE have worked better than carbon taxes have and also have caused zero national protests in France.
Decarbonizing is an infrastructure replacement problem, which is capital intensive. It needs solutions that encourage, subsidize, and mandate green capital investment. Carbon taxes affects capital decisions at the discount rates of corporations (10%) or consumers (20%ish), which gives them a short time horizon. They also don’t really kick the green tech adoption laggards in the butt enough to get to 99% decarbonization."
This is an opinion piece, but it is the national academy of sciences at least.
Switching to EVs is a step forward but as long as we convince ourselves that owning 2 EV saved the planet we're not actually tackling the issue.
If we want to reduce carbon then all we have to do is tax it accordingly. Include it in the price of everything. Your car, home, food, roads, etc. Nobody considers the carbon impact of building a 400sqft / 350mp home today, the lawn, the asphalted driveway, etc. They'll build it, drive a Prius or a Model X, and sleep thinking they save the world one car at a time. Include the carbon tax in the price and some may reconsider.
[0] https://www.autonews.com/article/20180123/MOBILITY/180129900...
[1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/size-of-t...
There may be a big difference thought: you build your home once or twice per lifetime (even less if we look at it on a macro POV), whereas you spit C02 in the atmosphere every single day by commuting to work. I won't do the math, but I'd bet the second scenario as a far more CO2 cost that the first one.
The average new passenger ICE car puts out ~120g CO2 per Km (a smaller car/engine even less). [0] At EU's 12000Km/year driving average that's <1.5t CO2/year. A house (in the UK but likely representative) is estimated to generate 50-80t of CO2 to be built. [1][2] One can assume that since building a house is already very expensive very few will actively use the even more expensive "greener" materials and construction methods. The lifetime footprint will also be considerable between watering the lawn, heating the house, keeping the lights on, etc. And living in a suburb means you'll pretty much have to use a car because public transport can never efficiently cover spread out neighborhoods of individual houses.
I've read estimates that an ICE generates ~24t CO2 over its lifecycle while an EV generates ~18t. A hefty 25% reduction but still considerable. Yet all you hear is "buy an EV" because manufacturers push for it and people like their status symbol and virtue signaling. Their other actions contradict their purported intention of trying to clean up. The charitable interpretation is that people don't understand how things contribute to pollution and the media coverage of EVs does little to dispel that.
If you want to tackle CO2 emissions one of the best ways is to include the tax in every product and service according to its share of emissions.
*Full disclosure, I drive a small ICE car to the tune of ~0.5t CO2/year. And while this will change soon I am fully aware I am not saving anything but my public image even if my overall carbon footprint is likely way below average.
[0] https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/average-co2-emissions-f...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...
[2] https://citu.co.uk/citu-live/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of...
Don't get me wrong, density is better, but putting the blame on lack of density gives suburbs an excuse they are not worthy of.
The environmental and economic benefits of public transportation are only unlocked if everyone uses it. If sufficient people have alternatives, such as personal cars, then it weakens political demand for public transportation, as well as economic demand.
And of course, being spread out means spending more fuel per person, which is also not economical.
If you take a modern suburb, pack 10 story mixed use buildings on the land and force people to live there. You would have the densest city in the world (remember we forced the population), but transit ridership would still be poor. People would walk most places (unless disabled) because the transit system wouldn't go anywhere you couldn't walk in about the same time. Only by adjusting the road form so you can get someplace in a reasonable amount of time can transit work.
Density is the difference between there always being a bus/train in sight and needing to check the schedule before going anywhere. Having to check the schedule is annoying enough, but a otherwise good reliable transit system can still overcome that.
Talking to the planning officer now and they'll begrudgingly allow timber frame but insist you cover it in plaster, hideous pebble dash, etc., which of course is cement based and carries a large carbon footprint.
If history is any indicator they'll catch up to what the rest of the world is doing and start embracing timber frame homes (which are easier to hit NZEB standards with) about 20 years after everyone else.
Timber frame homes have a much, much, much lower embodied energy footprint, and of course sequester carbon in their wood.
Wood burns more easily, it's much easier to damage by water, rot, and all kinds of infestations and pests that are very common in many areas, etc. and on top of that it's very hard to "manufacture". Widespread and extensive use of wood in home construction around the world and deforestation come hand in hand.
Steel, concrete, and brick are still required in volume for any building and to respect safety codes. More so in any dense and seismically active area.
> and of course sequester carbon in their wood.
Trees sequester carbon in their wood, in addition to many other benefits. :)
It took 150 years to come up with usable car batteries. Perhaps in time we'll come up with better building materials that truly sequester carbon either from manufacturing or by actively absorbing it. In the meantime there's no going around the fact that a larger home will have a larger carbon footprint. The average US home has 5 rooms and 170mp/1800sqft plus 300mp/3200sqft yard&all. Moving to timber frames and EVs doesn't compensate for the other choices.
But my point stands: while yes, the amount of ICE cars should be reduced, it'll have a relatively low impact. All of the areas in [1] should find ways to lower their emissions footprint. There are companies building trucks using renewables, but it'll take a long time (and development, and likely financial incentives) before the current active truck population has been converted. And there isn't a viable solution for flying yet. Trains could run on renewables but that would require a massive overhaul of the US infrastructure, and it wouldn't be able to compete with flying (in terms of time, capacity, price) if you go across the country, even if it's a high speed train / maglev / hyperloop system.
Tldr, don't stare yourself blind on just one aspect, and definitely don't start blaming the individuals, they can't make an impact even if they all change their ways - it's big companies, industries, etc, things at scale that need to have an overhaul.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
I'm starting to become frustrated with people around my age that keep moving to the suburbs; essentially making it mandatory for them to own cars for decades to come. One friend even moved to a another city about 50km away: he commutes by car from there. It is just insanity. I don't think we have the luxury for everyone to have their own cars anymore. We should stop selling them (both EV and ICE).
There is also such a disconnect between what people say and do. They'll do some recycling and eat a bit less meat and feel satisfied that they are helping. But at the same time, they go to work by car, fly between major cities, think that New Zealand would be a great vacation spot, and buy new phones, TVs and clothes as often as they can.
The "corona lifestyle", where people work from home, consume less and stop all international travel is a start. But if course, with this solution there would be a lot of economic hardship as well (as we can see now).
It feels a bit hopeless sometimes. Like we already lost, but we just haven't realized it yet.
Tons of high-quality used cars will hit the market, driving the price close to zero, and eliminating the new ICE market (why buy a $30K new ICE car when you can get a used ICE car that's almost as good for $5K?).
While Musk always had this strange quirk where he's both supremely successful and prone to superficial, belligerent forwards-from-grandpa-style opinions on unrelated matters, his current state seems distinctly worse than ever before.
My theory is that Tesla is hurting really bad under the current circumstances, putting enormous pressure on him.
Tesla also has the problem that, unlike traditional car manufacturers, they don't have much of a lobby in Washington to bail them out, especially under the current administration. And even in California, they probably have neither the numbers nor the strong unions with long-established political power that GM has in and around Michigan. Plus California has far more other business further diminishing Tesla's standing in comparison.